ML13331B115
| ML13331B115 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1988 |
| From: | Papay L Southern California Edison Co |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13331B114 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-06-10.A, TASK-6-10.A, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8901040113 | |
| Download: ML13331B115 (8) | |
Text
KT BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Application of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
)
COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY )
for a Class 104(b) License to Acquire,
)
DOCKET NO. 50-206 Possess, and Use a Utilization Facility as
)
Part of Unit No. 1 of the San Onofre Nuclear )
Amendment No. 162 Generating Station
)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, hereby submit Amendment Application No. 162.
This amendment consists of Proposed Change No. 199 to Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13. Proposed Change No. 199 modifies the Technical Specifications incorporated in Provisional Operating License No. DPR-13 as Appendix A.
Proposed Change No. 199 is a request to incorporate Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) and Surveillance requirements associated with containment spray actuation instrumentation into the Technical Specifications. In accordance with resolution of Systematic Evaluation Program Topic VI-10.A, "Testing of Reactor Trip System and Engineered Safety Features, Including Response-Time Testing," this proposed change incorporates LCOs and surveillance requirements that are not currently included in the technical specifications.
.8,9o 1040113 8812:29 FDR ADOCK 05000206 P
.7
-2 In the event of conflict, the information in Amendment Application No. 162 supersedes the information previously submitted.
Based on the significant hazards analysis provided in the Description of Proposed Change and Significant Hazards Analysis of Proposed Change No. 199, it is concluded that (1) the proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined in 10 CFR 50.92, and (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed change.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 170.12, the fee of $150 is herewith remitted.
-3 Subscribed on this day of dzev 1988.
Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Dr. L. T. Papay Senior Vice President Subscribed and sworn to before me this off day of i/q//
OFFICIAL SEAL AGNES CRABTREE Notary Public-California j
LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Sep. 14, 1990 Nota Public in and for the County of Los Angeles, State of California Charles R. Kocher James A. Beoletto Attorneys for Southern California Edison Company By:
Jam0 1 Beoletto 01700
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of SOUTHERN
)
CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
)
and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-206 COMPANY (San Onofre Nuclear
)
Generating Station Unit No. 1
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Amendment Application No. 162 was served on the following by deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on the 29th day of December
, 1988.
Benjamin H. Vogler, Esq.
Staff Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 David R. Pigott, Esq.
Samuel B. Casey, Esq.
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 L. G. Hinkleman Bechtel Power Corporation P.O. Box 60860, Terminal Annex Los Angeles, California 90060 Michael L. Mellor, Esq.
Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges Two Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111 Huey Johnson Secretary for Resources State of California 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, California 95814 Janice E. Kerr, General Counsel California Public Utilities Commission 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 01700
-2 C. J. Craig Manager U. S. Nuclear Projects I ESSD Westinghouse Electric Corporation Post Office Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 A. I. Gaede 23222 Cheswald Drive Laguna Niguel, California 92677 Frederick E. John, Executive Director California Public Utilities Commission 5050 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ja 01Beolett 01700
DESCRIPTION AND SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CHANGE NO. 199 TO THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PROVISIONAL OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-13 This is a request to revise the Appendix A Technical Specifications for San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 (SONGS 1) to include two new Sections 3.5.11, "CONTAINMENT SPRAY ACTUATION SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION" and 4.1.14, "CONTAINMENT SPRAY ACTUATION SYSTEM SURVEILLANCE."
DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES The following is a summary discussion of the proposed changes to the above discussed technical specification sections.
The proposed specifications are provided as Attachment 1.
As part of the NRC review of SEP Topic VI-10.A, "Testing of Reactor Trip System and Engineered Safety Features, Including Response-Time Testing," it was concluded that technical specification limiting conditions for operation (LCOs) and surveillance requirements are appropriate for the containment spray actuation system (CSAS). Accordingly, Sections 3.5.11 and 4.1.14 are proposed. The changes proposed herein are consistent with SONGS 1 design and NUREG-0452, "Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors" (STS), Revision 4.
EXISTING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Not Applicable PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS See Attachment 1 SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION ANALYSIS As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a)(1), this analysis is provided to demonstrate that a proposed license amendment to incorporate containment spray system requirements for SONGS 1 represents a no significant hazards consideration.
In accordance with the three factor test of 10 CFR 50.92(c), implementation of the proposed amendment was analyzed and found not to:
- 1) involve a.
significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or 2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or 3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
-2 The containment spray system is required to spray down the containment atmosphere to reduce pressure following a loss of coolant or loss of secondary coolant accident. The design basis of this system is to maintain the containment pressure within the design limits for the structure. Accordingly, the containment spray actuation system (CSAS) is designed to initiate the containment spray system in an anticipatory sequence, such that for the limiting design basis accident, the containment pressure does not exceed the design basis limit. It is the purpose of this proposed amendment to include CSAS LCOs and surveillance requirements in order to provide assurance that the CSAS will be available to perform its design basis function.
The proposed technical specifications are based upon the guidance in NUREG-0452, "Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors, Revision 4" (STS).
The STS provide LCOs and surveillance requirements for the engineered safety features systems, of which the CSAS is part. Accordingly, since the proposed specifications are modeled after the STS and SONGS 1 design, they are appropriate for use at SONGS 1.
It is noted that the sequencer subchannels functional unit is different from the STS, but the SONGS I design requires a containment pressure high-high signal coincident with a safety injection sequencer subchannel input, in order to initiate a CSAS signal.
Accordingly, STS-type of LCOs and surveillances are proposed for the sequencer subchannel functional unit. The proposed requirements are consistent with the existing sequencer subchannel requirements for the containment isolation instrumentation as deliniated by Technical Specification 3.5.5. The sequencer subchannels provide input to containment isolation as well as containment spray.
Analysis Conformance of the proposed amendments to the standards for a determination of no significant hazard as defined in 10 CFR 50.92 (three factor test) is shown in the following:
- 1. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
RESPONSE: NO The CSAS is an accident mitigation system with no impact on accident probabilities. The CSAS is an existing system and this proposed change will incorporate surveillance and operability requirements into the technical specifications. The operability of the CSAS does affect previously analyzed accident consequences, as these accidents require successful operation of the CSAS to achieve their calculated design basis conclusion. Therefore, it is concluded that operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
- 2. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
0 g
-3 RESPONSE: NO The CSAS is an existing plant system and formally requiring its operability and surveillance does not create any new or different accidents. The proposed LCOs and surveillance requirements are consistent with STS specifications in this area, and, accordingly, are appropriate. Therefore, it is concluded that operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
- 3. Will operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
RESPONSE: NO Requiring the CSAS to be operable and surveilled will preserve existing, analyzed margins of safety. As the proposed change is in conformance with STS guidance, a required and assumed margin of safety will be maintained. Therefore, it is concluded that operation of the facility in accordance with this proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
SAFETY AND SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION Based on the preceding analysis, it is concluded that: (1) Proposed Change No. 199 does not involve a significant hazards consideration as defined by 10 CFR 50.92; and (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed change. -
Proposed Specifications LAB:0372n